The Online Bystander Effect: Evidence from a Study on Synchronous Facebook Communications

Guazzini, Andrea; Imbimbo, Enrico; Stefanelli, Federica; Bravi, Giulia

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34770-3_12

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While our findings suggest that self‐efficacy does predict helping intentions, helping intentions as explained by factors such as sympathy may not be conditional on self‐efficacy. Our findings are in line with research that suggests high‐self‐efficacy results in higher helping intentions (Rossetto et al, 2014), but low self‐efficacy results in lower helping intentions possibly related to an online bystander effect (Guazzini et al, 2019). Self‐efficacy interventions have been previously successful in increasing support provision in by‐stander studies (Foubert et al, 2010; Langhinrichsen‐Rohling et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Self‐efficacy, sympathy, and attributions: Understanding helping intentions towards disclosers of mental health concerns on social media

White

Ahern

2022

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental health disclosures increasingly occur on online platforms. In a moderatedmediation analysis, we assessed an adapted Corrigan's attribution model (2003) including factors such as the sincerity of online disclosure and support self-efficacy to predict helping intentions on social media. Participants (N = 177) were randomly allocated to one of three conditions and presented with a social media vignette experimentally manipulating controllability attributions (low, high, neutral controllability). Participants completed controllability, sincerity, sympathy, self-efficacy, and helping intentions questionnaires. While preliminary exploratory analyses revealed that the proposed model significantly explained helping intentions, the proposed mechanisms of serial-mediation via sincerity of disclosure and sympathy was not supported, nor was this dependent on self-efficacy. Nonetheless, sympathy and selfefficacy uniquely and significantly explained helping intentions. Thus, an intervention that upskills individuals in online support provision offers promise in terms of accessible, online, community-based treatment initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Self‐efficacy, sympathy, and attributions: Understanding helping intentions towards disclosers of mental health concerns on social media

White

Ahern

2022

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although research shows that multiple corrections are more effective at reducing misperceptions (Ecker et al, 2011;Vraga & Bode, 2017), we might expect that from a users' perspective, seeing existing corrections may decrease the likelihood of responding because others have already done so, consistent with research into the diffusion of responsibility and bystander effect (Choo et al, 2019;Guazzini et al, 2019;Lickerman, 2010;Martin & North, 2015). Exposure to corrections may indicate that others have already helped, which may lead users to not respond.…”

Section: Responding To Misinformation On Social Mediamentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Bystander research suggests that the tendency to offer help decreases when others are present. One explanation for this lack of response is tied to diffusion of responsibility—or the idea that others will intervene (Guazzini et al, 2019; Lickerman, 2010). Extending this idea, in this study, seeing a correction may prompt others to assume that the problem (in this case, the misinformation) has been rectified (corrected), leading them to not respond.…”

Section: Responding To Misinformation On Social Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilizing Users: Does Exposure to Misinformation and Its Correction Affect Users’ Responses to a Health Misinformation Post?

Tully

Bode

Vraga

2020

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misinformation spreads on social media when users engage with it, but users can also respond to correct it. Using an experimental design, we examine how exposure to misinformation and correction on Twitter about unpasteurized milk affects participants’ likelihood of responding to the misinformation, and we code open-ended responses to see what participants would say if they did respond. Results suggest that participants are overall unlikely to reply to the misinformation tweet. However, content analysis of hypothetical replies suggests they largely do provide correct information, especially after seeing other corrections. These results suggest that user corrections offer untapped potential in responding to misinformation on social media but effort must be made to consider how users can be mobilized to provide corrections given their general unwillingness to reply.

show abstract

“…The score is calculated by adding together the answers to all of the items: a higher score in this questionnaire is an indication of higher Self Efficacy. The reference data were taken from a study by Guazzini et al [34], in which its internal reliability coefficient is α = 0.90. In our study, the internal reliability coefficient is α = 0.82.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Before and after the Quarantine: An Approximate Study on the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on the Italian Population during the Lockdown Period

Guazzini¹,

Pesce²

2020

Future Internet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 (Corona-Virus Disease 2019) in Italy and the measures that were adopted to contain its diffusion had a strong impact on people’s quality of life and mental health. The objective of the study was to quantify the psychological impact of the lockdown period on the general Italian population during the two weeks when the COVID-19 emergency in Italy was at its peak. The study (1556 adults) was conducted from April 6th to April 12th, 2020. A survey was developed through Google Forms in order to assess different psychological measures (Self Efficacy, Locus of Control, Social Connectedness, Sense of Virtual Community, Flourishing, Positive and Negative Affect, Life Satisfaction, and Risk Propensity). The results were then compared to reference data. Thelockdown period increased arousal mainly for negative emotions, but also for positive emotions, and quality of life seemed to be reduced. From a psychosocial point of view, while social connectedness has decreased during lockdown, probably because of isolation and social distancing, the virtual social community seemed to increase in the same period. Interestingly, we revealed how self efficacy increased during the lockdown period, and, at the same time, the Locus of control appeared as externalized, and the risk propensity as reduced. The results are discussed considering previous literature, and a coherent theoretical framework is proposed in order to refine the forecasting model for the psychological impact of the lockdown.

show abstract

The Online Bystander Effect: Evidence from a Study on Synchronous Facebook Communications

Cited by 5 publications

References 48 publications

Self‐efficacy, sympathy, and attributions: Understanding helping intentions towards disclosers of mental health concerns on social media

Self‐efficacy, sympathy, and attributions: Understanding helping intentions towards disclosers of mental health concerns on social media

Mobilizing Users: Does Exposure to Misinformation and Its Correction Affect Users’ Responses to a Health Misinformation Post?

Before and after the Quarantine: An Approximate Study on the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on the Italian Population during the Lockdown Period

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About